Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses the returned data's composition and the intended downstream use with submit_enquiry, which makes the tool's read-only, schema-like nature clear. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a parameterless field-listing tool these are not material gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the complete field enumeration, and the second immediately provides actionable guidance for using the result. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully defines the return content and the expected next step. An agent can confidently call this tool and know exactly what information it will receive and how to use it with submit_enquiry.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description has no parameters to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description adds relevant context about how the output should be used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: every field of the Answering Service Picker enquiry, listing key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by establishing that this tool provides the field keys used when submitting answers, and from the compare_* siblings by focusing on the enquiry's fields rather than comparisons.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear workflow context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells an agent to call this tool before submitting and explains how to map results to parameters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against sibling tools, so it falls just short of full explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.